boa_03 21 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1988
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being seven in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: John McDaniel - Chairman
Earlene Douglas
Cynthia Alderman
Jim Mitchell
Rex Crane
Eduard Scharff'
Ronald Pierce
Members Absent: George Wells
Thomas McGowan
City Attorney Present: Bob Hall
March 21, 1988
Item No. A - Z-4979
Owner: Twin City Transportation, Inc.
Address: 1609 East 3rd Street
Description: Lot 1, of Glass's Replat of Lots 1,
2, 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, of the
Garland Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variance From the area provisions of
Requested: Section 7-104.2-E.1 and 2 to permit a
reduced front and side yard setbacks.
Justification: If the shop is constructed at the
location now called for by the
Ordinance, it will for all practical
purposes make our parking lot useless
for its original purpose.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analvs is
The issues before the Board of Adjustment is that of a
reduced front and side yard setback. The property is
zoned "I -2" Light Industrial. Front yard setbacks in
this zoning are to be 50 feet, the applicant is
requesting six feet. Side yard setbacks are to be 15
feet, the applicant is requesting six feet. The
purpose of the requested variance is to allow for
construction of a maintenance shop in order to do
routine repair work on company trucks. The repair
would take place during the post meridiem work hours.
The applicant feels that if the shop was located in
another area it would obstruct the needed parking area
on site.
March 21, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
The site fronts on East 3rd Street with an asphalt
parking area to the front and rear of the site. The
company in question, Twin City Transportation,
encompasses the entire block from East 3rd, East 4th
and Pepper Streets. There are residential uses on East
4th Street and on the east side of the site.
For the present requested variance, staff feels that
the applicant has not demonstrated that a hardship
exists. Due to the fact of the type of use the new
addition would house, it presents a problem that would
impact the residential uses. Staff also feels that the
residential zoning in the area will remain for sometime
in the future. A more suitable location would be to
place the new structure on the west side of the
building. This would still allow for good maneuvering
of the trucks on the site and maintain a suitable
parking area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending denial of the variance as filed due to
the impact the use will have to the residential neighbors.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
Mr. Ron Glass represented the applicant, Twin City
Transportation. Mr. Glass stated that he totally disagreed
with staff's recommendation. If the maintenance building
was to be placed at any other location on the site, he would
not be able to park his trucks nor would they be able to
maneuver on and off the site. He also stated that the
maintenance would be light such as oil changes and that
there would not be any p.m. work hours. The staff reminded
Mr. Glass that when the application was taken he indicated
that there would be p.m. work hours. Staff restated that
the location of the maintenance building at the present
indicated position would place a hardship on the residential
uses abutting the site.
Mr. Glass stated that if he is not allowed to place the
building where he has indicated then he probably would have
to relocate his business due to the fact he purchased the
building materials before he found out that he would not be
able to construct a maintenance area. The maintenance
building is needed because of the expense incurred when
light maintenance is done when trucks are out on the road.
March 21, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
Staff was asked by the Board whether the residential uses
would remain in the future. Staff stated that even though
there is industrial zoning in the same vicinity of the site,
the residential property would probably remain because of
what is indicated on the zoning maps.
Several of the Board members felt that a deferral would be
appropriate in order to allow them time to meet on the site
for a visual view in order to get a better feel for what the
applicant was stating and to understand better staff's
reason for denying the request. A motion was then made to
defer the item until the March 21, 1988, meeting. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (3-21-88)
Mr. Ron Glass represented the applicant, Twin City
Transportation. There were no objectors present. Mr. Glass
stated that he still disagreed with staff's recommendation
and thought that by meeting on the site he clearly explained
his position to the Board members. A gathering of the Board
being five in number did meet on the site Feburary 29, 1988.
Several members of the Board voiced their concerns about the
location. One felt the proposed structure would be too much
of an intrusion to the resident to the east. Another
stated that due to the fact of the residential use being in
the location the request would place an hardship on those
neighbors. Several others stated that the applicant could
adequately move the building to another location on the site
and still be able to maneuver the trailers. After further
discussion, a compromise was proposed to the applicant,
which was to disallow the variance on the east side and
allow it for the frontage on East 4th Street. This means
that the requirement of 15 feet on the east side would have
to met. The applicant stated he really needed and wanted
both variances as applied for, but if he had no other
recourse but denial for those two requests, he would accept
the one variance as being recommended.
A motion was then made to approve the variance for East 4th
Street frontage but not for the east side yard which means
the applicant will have to meet the requirement of 15 feet.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes (Alderman and
Douglas), 2 absent.
March 21, 1988
Item No. B - Z-1432-A
Owner: Mehlco, Inc.
Address: 7509 Cantrell Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance From the height regulation provisions
Requested: of Section 7-103.3-D to permit a
tower 148 feet in height.
Justification: The height variance is needed in order
to reach the maximum population
possible for a frequency of 3.0 kw
power.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The application before the Board of Adjustment at this
time is for a height variance of 148 feet. The
property is zoned "C-3" General Commercial and the
allowable height is 35 feet. The intent behind this
request is for a radio tower. If permitted, the tower
will be freestanding and encompass two parking spaces
on the rear southeast corner of the Tanglewood Shopping
Center. The applicant proposes to house the 3.0 kw
low -power frequency radio station on the same site.
Presently on site are commercial and office uses.
Surrounding the property are residential uses to the
south and part of the east. To the north and on the
northeast corner, there are commercial uses and to the
west commercial and residential.
March 21, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
Staff feels that the applicant has not adequately
justified a hardship for a height variance. In the
proposed location with a base dimension of 8 1/2 feet
and height of 148 feet, the tower would be a
considerable impact to the residential property. Also
associated with this request, if approved, is the need
for clarification in the Ordinance on whether a radio
station licensed by the public falls within a "C-3"
zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending denial of the variance as filed. The
impact of the size of the base and height would place a
considerable hardship on the residential property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
Mrs. Terri Bonner represented the applicant, Mehlco, Inc.
There were no objectors in attendance. Mrs. Bonner stated
that she totally disagreed with staff's recommendation. She
had several concerns, first being - that when she came in to
apply for the variance she was told that she would receive a
copy of staff's recommendation before the meeting. After
discussion, it was learned that Mrs. Bonner had only
received one sheet of the staff's write-up for her item, but
there should have been two sheets. It was then explained
that staff was sorry the mistake happened. Secondly,
Mrs. Bonner wanted clarification as to what was meant by
"C-3" not being a proper zone for a station licensed by the
public. When she filled out the application, she was told
it wa appropriate. Staff stated that particular
clarification was for staff purposes and was put in the
agenda because the City Attorney's Office had not yet made a
determination when the agenda was printed but had since
determined that a radio station licensed by the public, in
fact, came under the "C-3" as interpreted by the Zoning
Ordinance. Mrs. Bonner then stated that the tower would be
low impact and unobtrusive to the residential property and
wanted to know what staff meant by the statement and
recommendation that the tower would place a considerable
hardship on the residential property. Staff stated that due
to the fact the base of the tower would be 8' 6" and the
height would be a 1481, it would in staff's opinion place a
bad visual view to those residential neighbors. Another
point that Mrs. Bonner made was there already is a higher as
well as larger tower north of this site on Mississippi that
is most obtrusive and places more impact on those residences
than the tower she is proposing. Staff reminded the Board
that the tower Mrs. Bonner was referring to was
grandfathered (annexed) into the City before the City Zoning
Ordinance was adopted.
March 21, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
Mrs. Bonner stated that the tower would take up only two
parking spaces and she had present Mr. Dean Howard, the
engineer for the proposal. Mr. Howard addressed the Board
and spoke in regard to the technical aspect of the proposal.
He explained the type of material the tower would be
constructed of which is aluminum. He also stated that the
tower would be freestanding which means that if the tower
ever fell because of the weather it would not fall forward
but would collapse in a folding manner and not endanger any
of the other property surrounding the site.
Mrs. Bonner was then asked if she planned to place a fence
around the base of the tower. She stated, no, but staff
stated that if the tower was approved, then staff would
strongly recommended a fence be placed around the base to
make it more safe and help prevent any possible intrusion.
Mr. Howard stated he would have to agree with staff's
recommendation. Mrs. Bonner was informed by the Board that
in the past the Board really has not gone along with height
variance for towers because the hardship usually is one of
economic value which is not the type of hardship the Board
is supposed to be concerned about. The question was then
asked by the Board if another site would better serve the
applicant's request. Staff stated that possibly if the
tower was placed at the northwest corner of the site away
from the residential property it would better serve the
area. It would then be on the highest elevation of the site
and still serve the purpose intended which is for the signal
to reach the maximum population of the City. Mrs. Bonner
stated that she felt the site proposed was the best, and
during the discussion with the manager of the Tanglewood
Shopping Center no other site was discussed. Mr. Dwight
Blissard, manager of Tanglewood Shopping Center, then spoke
and stated that no other site was discussed but since the
station would be located in the building adjacent to the
parking lot where the tower is being proposed, the thought
was it would be the best site. The question was then asked
of the applicant and Mr. Blissard if there would be a
problem relocating the tower. Mr. Blissard stated that he
didn't feel it would but agreed with Mrs. Bonner that the
location proposed would be the best. Mrs. Bonner was then
asked if she had any problem with this item being deferred
for 30 days in order to allow time for a different location
or site to be determined. Mrs. Bonner stated that the
deferral would delay her plans because the application to
the FCC has been sent, but rather than the request be denied
she would accept the deferral.
March 21, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
A motion was then made to defer the item for a period of 30
days in order to allow the applicant time to find a
different location on the site. The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, 1 abstention (McDaniels). This
item will be heard again at the March 21, 1988, meeting.
The Board then informed Mrs. Bonner that just because the
item was deferred it does not mean that if she comes back
with a different location on -site it will be automatically
approved. They then suggested that she meet with staff and
see if the possible alternative location will work before
the next meeting.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (3-21-88)
Mrs. Terri Bonner acted as spokesperson for the applicant,
Mehlco, Inc. There were no objectors present. Mrs. Bonner
stated she had gotten together with the owner of Tanglewood
Shopping Center and had come up with a different location
but still preferred the original one. A Board member then
asked if with the new location she would reduce the amount
of height because the new location would be on a higher
elevation. Mrs. Bonner stated she would if the FCC would
allow it, but they would not because of certain rules and
regulations that govern them. Mrs. Bonner was then asked
what type of programming would this station operate under,
and she stated, "classical." A motion was then made to
approve the height variance for the original location. The
motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no (Douglas), 2
absent.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 1 - Z-2371-A
Owner: The Crestwood Company /General Properties
Address: 617 South Broadway
Description: Lots 1-4 and Lots 9 -12, Block 106,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "GB" General Business
Variance From the parking requirement provisions
Requested: of Section 43-35 (1) of the Central
Little Rock Ordinance to permit leasing
of parking spaces to the public.
Justification: (1) The leasing of the parking spaces
promotes the most desirable use of
the property, in that this property
is already fashioned so as to be a
parking garage.
(2) The leasing of the parking spaces
provides off - street parking in
conjunction with the development of
a commercial area.
Present Use of
Property: Parking garage
Proposed Use
of Property: Parking garage available to the public
STAFF REPORT:
A. Enqineerinq Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
At issue before the Board of Adjustment is a request
from the Holiday Inn City Center to allow for the
present four -story garage to be contracted out in order
for some of the parking spaces to be used commercially.
This particular parcel of property is located west of
Broadway. The Central Little Rock Ordinance states
that the parking requirement is one space per guest
room. A block north of this location is the
Metrocentre area which requires zero parking, i.e.,
March 21, 1988
Item No. 1 - Continued
Capitol Towers Parking Garage. In the Central Little
Rock Ordinance, commercial lots are permitted but
exempt from enclosure which is intended for those lots
that are not confined by a roof and sides.
The applicant states that free parking will continue to
be offered to the hotel guests. On an average yearly
occupancy, there has been recently only a 42 percent
usage of the garage by the hotel guests. Therefore,
the applicants request is for more than half or 55
percent of the parking spaces to be leased out.
To the rear of the property between the garage and
hotel is a 20-foot alley. A 15-foot skyway is
constructed that connects the two structures. Since
the location of this property is in the Central Little
Rock area, the Zoning Ordinance requirements do not
apply. The Central Little Rock Ordinance would prevail
in the requirements and restrictions. Staff feels that
because of the fact the hotel use does not generate a
lot of traffic in that a lot of the occupancies are
either picked up or dropped off, the applicant's
request is a reasonable one. But, during those times
when more of the hotel rooms would possibly be in use,
some provision will need to be provided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to: (a) a maximum of
140 spaces be provided for guest parking only and be
designated for the first two lower level floors, and (b) the
remaining 176 spaces be used as leased parking spaces
located on the upper two level floors with some type of
marking to indicate that they are in fact leased spaces.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Victor Fleming represented the applicant, the Crestwood
Company /General Properties. There was one objector present.
Mr. Scott Daniel, who because of an oversight did not
address the meeting but this record shall indicate that on
the registration card it is noted that he was in opposition
to the requested variance. Mr. Fleming stated that he was
in receipt of staff's recommendation but felt that they over
extended their authority by suggesting that the parking
areas be designated as to the use service. The request is
for the contracting out of the parking deck for the leasing
of approximately 70 percent of the parking as commercial
use. Mr. Fleming stated he doesn't feel that the intent of
the ordinance which indicates one space per guest room was
meant to be totally for that use only. His client had no
March 21, 1988
Item No. 1 - Continued
intention of violating the covenants of the ordinance. He
pointed out that in staff's analysis where it states that
only 42 percent of the garage is used on a yearly basis
doesn't apply to the garage but to the hotel occupancy. In
their letter to staff, it was wasn't indicated how many
parking spaces are used on an average basis. He then
submitted a letter which addressed the parking garage
average occupancy. The letter indicated that an average of
less than 100 cars per day represent hotel clientele in the
garage. He then stated that in staff's analysis where it
indicated the hotel wants to lease out 55 percent of the
parking spaces was incorrect. What his client wanted was to
be able to lease out all of the parking spaces not occupied
by the hotel guests.
Also included in the letter submitted to the Board were
explanations of the type of hardships associated with the
marking of the spaces, which aqain he felt, the staff by
recommending striping of the spaces and designating their
use had intruded into the day-to-day operations of the
hotel. There is a lease that has not been executed with
National Garage which is so worded that in the event the
lease is enacted, parking will be provided for all hotel
guests, employees, restaurant patrons, and attendants of the
hotel will be given preferential treatment regarding the
available parking spaces. Because of the expertise of the
contracting agent, a sliding scale will be used to ensure
that not all the parking spaces are occupied at any given
time. A suggestion to the Board would be to grant
permission to open the garage to the public without any hard
and fast numbers but with the understanding from the
Crestwood Company and assurances from them that they will
not allow the intent of the ordinance to be violated. The
applicant would like for the Board to allow a period of six
months to see if this suggestion would work after which time
if it's proven that it doesn't, then other measures can be
taken.
After a considerable amount of discussion regarding staff's
intent in the recommendation such as the 55 percent figure
coming from one of Mr. Fleming's staff and not just
arbitrarily decided upon by staff, the purpose of the
designated location for the guest parking versus the lease
parking, the Board concern regarding what exactly was the
hardship beside the financial aspect and what guarantees can
the applicant provide that during the peak hours of the
hotel enough spaces would be provided. Mr. Kenny Scott of
March 21, 1988
Item No. 1 - Continued
the Zoning Enforcement Office stated that he would like to
caution the Board about the possible precedent that may be
set by approving this request. It is the first received by
his office and if approved probably would encourage other
parking decks in the downtown area to seek the same request.
The chairman then stated that it wasn't the intent of the
Board to scrutinize the parking in the downtown area because
the Board is very concerned about the availability of
parking especially in this area of the City. The Board was
under the impression that it was the hotel who would be
leasing the parking spaces out and not a contractual agent
like National Garage. Mr. Fleming stated that there is and
isn't a contractural agent in that the applicant in essence
wanted the most efficient operation possible. Therefore,
the lease is partially signed, but at the surprise of both
parties concerned, it was put on hold due to the City
stating that the process would be in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance. More discussion occurred between the Board,
staff, and applicant. Mr. Fleming was then asked what would
he state as the recommendation of his applicant. He then
stated that what his applicant would like is approval of the
request to open the parking spaces to the public with
adequate assurances and adequate review on a periodic basis
to ensure the spirit and intent of the one-to-one ratio of
the Zoning Ordinance is not violated.
The Board after discussion among themselves felt that a
legal interpretation was needed before they could make a
ruling on the request. Mr. Fleming was then asked if he
could agree to a 30-day deferral at which time the City
Attorney's Office would do some research and offer an
opinion at the next meeting. Mr. Fleming agreed to the
30-day deferral. A motion was then offered to defer this
item until the April 18, 1988, meeting. The motion passed
by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-1116-A
Owner: Dr. Tyler Thompson
Address: 5901 "H" Street
Description: East 90 feet of Lots 19 and 20 in
Block 7 of the Lincoln Park Addition to
the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas
Zoned: "O-3" General Commercial
Variance From the area regulations provisions of
Requested: Section 7-102.3-D.1 and 2 to permit
construction with -a reduced front and
side yard setback.
Justification: The carport is needed for protection of
cars from the weather as well as
providing an outside entrance to the
residential quarters which are upstairs.
Present Use of
Property: Office and Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Office and Residential
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the
construction of a two -car carport with a deck and roof.
There also will be stairs constructed leading to the
upper level of the two -story structure where the
entrance to the residential quarters will be secured.
The roof will be constructed in order to provide
protection from the weather when entering the
residential quarters. With the proposed construction,
the applicant will encroach in the front and side yard
setbacks. The ordinance states that the front yard
should be 25 feet and the applicant is desiring a front
yard of 13.2 feet. Side yard setbacks in this zoning
should be 10 feet, and the applicant is requesting a
zero side yard setback. All the proposed construction
March 21, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
will be attached to the existing structure with
guttering built on the south side for any potential
runoff. Presently, the property is used for a dual
purpose of which is an office on the ground level, that
of which is a doctor's office, and the upper level is
utilized for the resident where the entrance can only
be secured by going through the office part.
The structure is on a corner lot and fronts on "H"
Street with a side entrance for employees on Buchanan
Street. On the south side of the property, there are
residential uses, to the west there are office uses, to
the north is a vacant lot which is on a higher
elevation, and south is a mixed use of residential and
office. The lot immediately adjacent to the west side
where the construction will occur is a parking lot. To
the south of the property, there is a constructed
concrete retaining wall as well as a wooden fence that
extends the length of the property on the south and
west sides.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon (a) the
applicant providing for guttering to prevent any runoff to
the adjacent property owners, (b) no overhang can be
constructed that will extend over the west side, and (c) the
two -car carport can never be enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was represented by his attorney, Mr. Randall
G. Wright. There were no objectors present. Mr. Wright was
asked if he had anything to add to staff's recommendation.
He stated no and was in complete agreement with staff's
recommendation.
A motion was then made to approve the request per staff's
recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-3559-A
Owner: Ed Willis /Brad Walker, Agent
Address: 516 and 518 East 9th Street
Description: Long legal
Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential
Variance From the Central Little Rock Ordinance,
Requested: a conditional use permit is requested to
allow for a proposed use of a Community
Facility Type A.
Justification: This request is needed for the purpose
of MEMS ambulance service to provide
for a district post for the East
Little Rock service area.
Present Use of
Property: Residential /Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Community Facility Type A
STAFF REPORT:
A. Enqineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal before the Board of Adjustment at this
time is for a conditional use to allow for a satellite
post for the MEMS Ambulance Authority in conjunction
with an office use for the MEMS Alert Program to
operate from a structure located in the MacArthur Park
Historical District and falls under the regulation of
the Central Little Rock Ordinance. The property in
question is zoned "HR" High Density Residential and the
use in question would be for a Community Facility Type
A which by right is not an allowable use but is a
permitted use with a conditional use permit. The
structure will be used in its entirety for the purpose
of the ambulance staff office and serve the East Little
Rock area. There will be no change in the structure or
effect upon the Historic District and its requirements.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 3 - Continued
The use as proposed will consist of one ambulance to
be parked in the rear yard area of an existing
structure that for several years occupied an
advertising office under a conditional use permit. The
property is bordered on the west by a multi -unit
apartment structure, on the east the Little Rock Fire
Station No. 2, on the north of the property is a
multifamily residential and south is the MacArthur Park
area. There is an existing unpaved driveway and
parking area. On the west property line is a 1.9 foot
wall.
Also associated with this issue is a request before the
Little Rock Board of Directors to assess the
Authority's proposal and determine whether Resolution
No. 5526 prohibits the location of this type community
facility. The resolution adopted in April 1976, was
the result of several very controversial land use
decisions involving a pizza restaurant and a pancake
shop rearing upon the park from the I-30 Frontage Road.
Staff feels that the request of the applicant is a
reasonable one with no effect on Resolution No. 5526 or
impact to the MacArthur Park Historical District. A
directive stating the above fact has been sent to the
Board of Directors and will be addressed at their next
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the parking area
and drive being brought up to standards with three parking
spaces designated and the approval of the assessment
regarding Resolution No. 5526 by the Board of Directors.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Brad Walker was in attendance representing the applicant
as well as MEMS Ambulance. There were no objectors present.
Mr. Walker stated he was in agreement to staff's
recommendation all but the bringing of the parking area to
standard , striped, and providing of the three parking
spaces. He stated that since the lease from MEMS is only
for a period of one year he would prefer the parking be
delayed a year to see if MEMS would remain the tenant. He
also stated he had discussed certain stipulations regarding
MEMS Ambulance to the neighbors and had satisfied them to
the point that they are no longer in opposition to the
request.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 3 - Continued
Staff was then asked if Mr. Walker would be required to come
back before the Board after a year. Staff stated, no,
unless the parking requirements could not be met or the
Board so feels that he should. A motion was then made to
approve the request with a one year delay on the parking
requirements. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0
noes, 2 absent.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-4982
Owner: Dorothy Lynn
Address: 2224 North Beechwood
Description: Lot 1, Block 7
Elmhurst Addition to the City of
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the Area Regulations Provision
of Section 5-102.0 to permit
construction of an accessory building
to be less than 60 feet from a front
property line.
Justification: The storage building is needed to
store yard tools and garden materials
in order to protect them from
vandalism and theft.
Present Use of
Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is seeking approval from the ordinance
requirements for the construction of an 8' x 12'
storage building. At issue before the Board is the
Ordinance requirement of an accessory structure in an
"R-2" zoning being 60 feet from the frontage on a
street. The lot in question is 50 feet in width. To
the south, there is an open alley. In the past, there
was a 20' x 24' garage in the location in question.
The property is located in one of the older established
areas. The present structure on the site is a wood
frame house, and there is mature landscaping on the
property. The lot is on a corner lot and both "B"
March 21, 1988
Item No. 4 - Continued
and Beechwood Streets are narrow in size with no
immediate plans for future improvements. The street
most affected would be "B" Street. The applicant
proposes for the frontage to be 39 feet. There is a
wire fence surrounding the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Neither the applicant or a representative was present. A
motion was made to defer this request for 30 days. The
motion passed a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. This item
will appear again on the April 18, 1988, meeting agenda.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 5 - Z-4992
Owner: Arthur Robinson
Address: 4420 West 20th Street
Description: Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 25
Sidney B. Johnson's Addition to the
City of Little Rock
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: From the area regulations provision of
Section 7-103.3-D.1, 2 and 3 to permit
an addition to remain with a reduced
front, side, and rear yard setbacks.
Justification: Because I was not aware of the law, I
relied on my contractor to obtain and
secure all necessary papers regarding
the construction of which I found out
later he did not do.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This issue is before the Board of Adjustment as a result of
an enforcement action. The applicant has already
constructed a brick building on the lot. The problems
concerning this request is a reduced front, rear, and side
yard setbacks. The property is zoned "C-3" General
Commercial and the ordinance requirement states that a front
yard setback should be 25 feet, and the applicant is
proposing 20 feet. The side yard should be 15 feet, and the
applicant is proposing 3.3 feet. Rear yards in this zone
should be 25 feet, and the applicant is proposing 14.6
feet.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
Surrounding the property on all sides are residential uses.
West 19th Street is a closed street in this particular
block, closed in the sense that it has never been built
through to this block. What the applicant is proposing is
that the entrance and exiting from the lot be off Washington
Street. The slope of the property is such that the lot is
of higher elevation on the Washington Street side and part
of West 20th Street. The building in question is on Lot 4
of this addition. The applicant is proposing the
construction of a fence to be placed along the south
property line.
Staff is in support of this variance due to the fact the
structure is already built and is placed on a concrete slab
which presents the problem of it not being feasible for the
location to be changed.
ENGINEERING ISSUES:
There are none to be reported at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to (a) the parking
area being brought up to standard and striped, ( b) providing
of a six -foot wooden fence along the north and south
property line, and (c) any lighting on the site should be
directed inward toward the structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Arthur Robinson, was in attendance.
There were several people in attendance opposed to the
request. Mr. Robinson stated that the building was placed
wrong on the site by the contractor and that at the time the
building was built, he was in the hospital but had been
assured by the contractor that he had all the necessary
permits for the construction. Mr. Robinson was then asked
if he had any problems with staff's recommendation. He
stated, no, but to place the fence along the south property
line would block the corner. Staff stated that the south
side was incorrectly stated in the staff's recommendation
and it should be on the east side. Mr. Robinson stated that
he could accommodate the recommendation.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
Mrs. Grace Griffen stated that she saw a sign on the
property for a liquor permit and did not want it in her
neighborhood. Mrs. Elizabeth Eckford stated that
Mr. Robinson is known in the neighborhood for operating a
shot house in a shotgun house in the neighborhood and would
not like for this request to be granted. The chairman then
stated it was not the duty of the Board to address the types
of concerns the objectors were stating. The Board could
only deal with the building setbacks. For the record, Gwen
Miller, Mary Paradise, and Travis Turner all were against
the request for the same above stated reasons.
Mr. Kenny Scott of the Zoning Enforcement Office stated that
his office had been involved with this issue for some time.
Mr. Robinson, in the Zoning Enforcement Office's opinion,
misrepresented his request when the building permit was
issued. Mr. Scott showed and stated that Mr. Robinson's
building permit indicated he wanted it for a storage
building to be placed on the adjacent lot not the one where
the building is presently located. Mr. Scott also stated
that he has been informed that a beer permit was requested
for the site but had been denied by the Alcoholic Beverage
Commission.
After more discussion among the Board, a motion was then
made to deny the request as filed. The motion passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 6 - Z-4994
Owner: Catholic Diocese of Little Rock
Address: 822 Louisiana Street
Description: Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block 88,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
Zoned: "GB" General Business
Variance
Requested: (1) A waiver from the filing fee.
(2) From the off - street parking
provisions of Section 8-101-I of
the Central Little Rock Code of
Ordinances to permit a parking area
not meeting ordinance standards.
Justification: When the initial operating budget was
made this problem was not anticipated
and we do not have any funds at
this time to pave the area.
Present Use of
Property: Parking
Proposed Use
of Property: Parking
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before the Board at this time came about because
of an enforcement action. First before the initial request
can be addressed, the applicant has requested of the Board
to allow for a waiver from the filing fee requirement. This
request comes from Our House, a nonprofit organization,
which provides assistance to homeless people by providing
food and assisting them in finding employment. This request
is not an unusual one, and according to the City Attorney
one in which the Board can act on if they so see fit.
Secondly, the applicant, Our House, is required through the
Central Little Rock Ordinance to pave and stripe all areas
used for parking. The applicant states that this
organization operates on a limited budget and was not aware
of this requirement when the initial operating budqet for
this year was adopted. Due to the fact the operating monies
March 21, 1988
Item No. 6 - Continued
come from different sources, the only way that the parking
area can be brought up to standards is through fund raising
activities. Therefore, the applicant is asking for a delay
of one year in order to raise the money and correc the
violation by bringing the parking area up to standards.
The location of this site is at the corner of Louisiana and
9th Streets. The parking area is basically used by the
Vista Volunteers for pickup and deliveries of items. The
area is gravelled with a nonexisting curb cut off Louisiana
Street. On-site is an existing brick structure. Staff sees
no reason at this time why the applicant's request cannot be
honored for a period of one year. If the Board agrees and
approves the delay, the applicant should note that the
entrance and the exiting to the parking area should be taken
off the alley and no longer off Louisiana Street. If the
improvements have not taken place after a period of one
year, the applicant will he required to come back before the
Board to get any additional extensions.
ENGINEERING ISSUES:
There are none to be reported at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the requested variance
from the parking standards for one year with the
understanding of the applicant that if at that time, the
requirements cannot be met, he would then have to come back
before the Board of Adjustment.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Joe Flaherty, Executive Director of Our House,
represented the owners of the property. The Board first
took action on the request for waiver of the filing fee.
The motion for approval passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent. Secondly, the Board addressed the request for a
delay in the paving requirements for a period of one year.
Mr. Flaherty stated that the delay was needed in order for
the funds to be raised for the paving. A motion was made to
approve the request per staff's recommendation. The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-5000
Owner: Marcia Heien
Address: 2100 North Beechwood
Description: Lot 1, Block 4, Country Club Heights
Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area regulations provision
of Section 7-101.2-D.1 to permit a
reduced front yard setback.
Justification: The lot is small in size; therefore,
I am in need of the requested variance.
Present Use of
Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before the Board of Adjustment at this time is
to allow for the construction of a house with a reduced
front setback. The ordinance states that for a corner lot
the requirement of two front yards must be met. The
25-foot front yard setback will not be met on the Stonewall
Street side. The applicant is proposing for that frontage
to be 7.5 feet but all other requirements of the ordinance
will be met.
This lot was platted many years ago. The proposed two-story
brick structure will be 33' x 49' on a lot measuring 45' x
140'. By meeting the required side yard setback on the
north side, the amount of total separation to the adjacent
house will be approximately 12 feet. The property is
located in the Heights area of the City. Surrounding the
property is residential usage. At present, the lot is
vacant, and the elevation of the lot is considerably higher
than the street.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 7 - Continued
Staff feels that the applicant does display a hardship due
to the lot being only 45 feet and located on a corner. The
majority of the setbacks on other lots in the area are not
in compliance with the ordinance and the request will not
place an additional impact on the area.
ENGINEERING ISSUES:
There are none to be reported at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mrs. Marcia Heien, the applicant, was in attendance at the
meeting. There were approximately ten people present to
object to the request. Mrs. Heien addressed the Board and
stated she had no objections to staff's recommendation and
was unaware of what all the objections involved; therefore,
she would ask that those persons be allowed to come first
after which she would like the opportunity to rebutt any
objections stated. Mr. Herbert Mays who lives at
2021 Beechwood spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated
that the setback propoosed for Beechwood would be the same
as all the other houses up the street. The only thing being
asked is that it is a little closer to Stonewall. If the
variance is not approved, someone is going to build a
15-foot wide structure that is going to face Stonewall. He
said what the owner is trying to do is the best use and
certainly would add to the property values in the
neighborhood.
Mrs. Connie Holitik of 2101 North Beechwood spoke about her
concerns regarding: (a) the lot being too small for such a
large house, (b) the applicant's notice stated a request for
a front yard setback and the earlier notice that was brought
around to the immediate property owner stated a side yard
setback, (c) the house being lower on one side and higher on
the other because of the lot terrain, (d) the fact that the
variance is for such a large encroachment. Mrs. Holitik
also submitted a petition and pictures for the Board's
review.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 7 - Continued
Mrs. Lillie Porter of 2108 North Beechwood addressed the
Board concerning the erosion of the street with no retaining
wall being planned to be built. Lisa McEntire who lives
adjacent to where the new house is proposed stated that she
and her husband were aware that the lot was being sold but
had not had an opportunity to review any of the plans.
Another concern is what effects this structure will have on
the property values of other houses in the immediate area.
Maria Heien spoke to address the objections stated. First
of all, she is not building on a hillside. Her lot is about
3 feet higher than the street level. Secondly, the bank
on the south side is eroding, and it is her intention to do
something about it, but not to the point of building a
retaining wall. Mrs. Heien presented a scale drawing which
showed that the new structure would rise about 5 feet above
the adjacent house. The separation from this structure is
about 16 feet. There will not be any blocking of anyone's
light and air circulation.
The applicant was then asked if she would be willing to
accept a 30-day deferral in order to allow time for her to
meet with those in objection, the applicant stated that a
30-day deferral would be a hardship due to the fact that she
is operating under a tight time schedule and would prefer a
decision today if possible.
There was considerable discussion between the applicant and
those persons in objection. The chairman then suggested
that the applicant and the objectors if they were willing to
go outside of the meeting and see if some type of agreement
could be decided upon between them. All parties agreed so
the item was moved to the end of the agenda in order to
allow time for the parties to meet.
After approximately 20 to 30 minutes, the applicant and the
objectors returned to the meeting. The applicant stated
that an agreement had been reached which consisted of (a)
the frontage of Stonewall Street being 9 feet, (b) the
width size of the house being 31 feet, and (c) the house
size being reduced from two-story to one and one -half story.
The objectors wanted some assurances that this agreement
would be enforced, and Kenny Scott of the Enforcement Office
stated he would be responsible and any concerns should be
addressed to his office. Staff informed the applicant that
a copy of what was agreed upon would have to be drafted and
March 21, 1988
Item No. 7 - Continued
signed by the applicant and a designated person from the
group in opposition. The applicant agreed and Dr. Holitik
was designated as the person from the opposing group.
A motion was then made to approve the agreed upon plan
conditioned upon a written copy being submitted to the
Planning staff along with a copy of the modified plan. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 8 - Z-4991
Owner: Lloyd Norman
Address: 1400 Washington Street
Description: Lot 11, Block 5, H.F. Buhler's 9th
Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-4" Two Family District
variances
Requested: (1) From the height and area provisions
of Section 5-102-2.B to permit an
accessory structure less than 6
feet from a single family
structure.
(2) From the height and area provisions
of Section 5-102-2.0 to permit an
accessory structure less than 60
feet from the front property line.
Justification: The construction of a carport would aid
in the protection of the car when not in
use from tree sap, leaves, bird
droppings, and the weather.
Present Use of
Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential
STAFF REPORT:
A. Enqineerinq Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the
construction of a carport with reduced front yard
setbacks and less than 6 feet of separation of the new
structure from the principal structure. The ordinance
states that an accessory structure in an "R-2" zone has
to be 60 feet from the street frontages. What the
applicant is proposing is for a zero frontage on
March 21, 1988
Item No. 8 - Continued
West 14th Street. On this frontage, there is a wire
fence that is along the property line. Two or three
feet adjacent to this fence is a concrete drainage
ditch that separates this property from the street. On
the frontage to Washington Street, the applicant
proposes a frontage of 18 feet. The lot is 57 feet in
width and even if the carport was moved further back,
the requirement could still not be met.
The property is surrounded by residential uses. Both
streets are built up to standards. So far, no future
street improvements are planned. The drive to the
carport is in place, and the construction will consist
of the roof being placed on poles with runoff directed
toward the drainage ditch. The applicant plans for the
new structure not to be attached in order to save the
view from a window on the north side. There is a
garage on the site that is used for another car.
Staff feels that the proposal from the applicant would
not place any impact to the surrounding property
owners. The construction will be compatible with the
other residents. The fact that this is a corner lot
and with the size being only 57 feet in width, the
requirement of the ordinance cannot be met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the carport
never being enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. Mr. Norman agreed with staff's recommendation.
A motion was then made to approve the variance conditioned
upon the carport never being enclosed. The motion passed by
a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
March 21, 1988
Item No. 9 - Z-4995
Owner: Don Dixon
Address: 2706 Dorchester Street
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Request: Administrative appeal action to a home
occupation denial ruling.
This appeal has come about because of an earlier denial by
the Home Occupational Review Board during the last month
meeting. The applicant is proposing to operate a bicycle
service and repair facility in the garage which is attached
to his residence. This home occupation, which would be
called The Ground Crew would cater to a very limited group
of serious adult racers and touring cyclists.
The repair and service work would be done all with hand
tools. All work and storage will be indoors. There will be
no signs or merchandise displayed. The only inventory would
be a few chains, cables, tires, tubes, and rows of hand bar
tape. All these items will be stored in a small utility
closet which is a part of the garage structure.
Since there will be limited clientele, the applicant
proposes to provide pickup and delivery service. Therefore,
very little traffic will be generated. If and when
customers do drive up, the applicant feels that his driveway
offers sufficient off-street parking for three vehicles in
addition to his own. There will not be any problem with the
noise factor or offensive smells from the solvents used.
The issue before the Board is a determination as to whether
this type of bicycle repair service can exist as a home
occupation.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Don Dixon, the applicant, was present. After a considerable
amount of discussion, the Board ruled that the applicant's
request was reasonable, and a bicyle repair shop could exist
as a home occupation with certain stipulations. Those
March 21, 1988
Item No. 9 - Continued
stipulations being (a) no signs can be posted, (b) no retail
sales, (c) no outside storage, (d) no outside display, and
(e) the Zoning Enforcement Office will address any
complaints that may occur.
City of Little Rock
Office of
Comprehensive
Planning
MARCH 25, 1988
City Hall
Markham at Broadway
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371-4790
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES ON THE
PROPOSED PARKING POLICY CHANGE TO THE
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR THE
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK.
On March 21, 1988, the Board of Adjustment addressed staff's
presentation on the proposed policy change for parking in
the Central Little Rock Business District.
In the presentation by staff it was pointed out that after
careful review of research materials received from the
Planning Advisory Service, there were three possible
alternatives to the parking change, all of which were
outlined to them in a memorandum dated February 11, 1988.
The three alternatives consisted of (a) Parking reduction to
increase mass transit use, (b) Fees in lieu of parking, and
(c) Special parking requirements in the form of a special
overlay district being established. Staff informed the
Board that of the three, the third or (c) was the best
suited for the City of Little Rock. One major reason being
that by establishing a special overlay district, this would
allow for the Board a more flexible means of assessing each
case on its own merits as well as provide a written policy
for further reference.
One of the concerns of discussion surrounding this parking
policy proposal (c) was what would happen if after five (5)
years an applicant could not provide the parking. Staff
explained that basically that would be something the Board
would have to address at that time, but three choices would
be to (1) extend the number of feet in which the applicant
could seek parking i.e. more than the 600 feet required, (2)
upon review of the request, the Board could disallow any
further need for the applicant to satisfy the parking
requirement and, (3) an account could be established by the
City for the sole intent of the City obtaining space in
order to provide parking in the Central Business District.
The applicant would be assessed a fee for the amount of
parking spaces which are deficient.
Several of the Board members voiced their agreement with the
staff's explanation and felt that at this point, the policy
ror the special overlay district was workable and would
serve the Board's intent.
A motion was then made to recommend the establishment of a
special overlay district in the Central Business District of
the City of Little Rock for the sole purpose of a change in
the parking requirement. A memorandum stating the above
request will be sent to the Plans Committee for review in
order that an amendment to the City -wide Zoning Ordiance can
be drafted and sent on to the Planning Commission and Board
of Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0
noes, 3 absent (Wells, McGowan, Alderman).
AB /se
City of Little Rock
Office of City Hell
Comprehensive Markham at Broadway
Planning Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371.4790
March 15, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS
FROM: ANNA BROWN, PLANNING TECHNICIAN I
OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
SUBJECT: POLICY CHANGE FOR PARKING IN THE CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT
Attached is an outline of possible changes to the present
parking requirements for the Central Business District. Of
the three preliminary policy changes mentioned staff feels
that the third or (c) is more conducive to the City of
Little Rock's needs.
If you recall, this item was scheduled for discussion at the
agenda session for the February 22nd meeting. Since there
was not a majority of members on the Board in attendance,
this item was deferred until the March 21, 1988 meeting.
Please review the attachment for discussion that will be
held at 1:00 p.m. on March 21, 1988 approximately 30 minutes
before the regularly scheduled agenda session.
Your input regarding this matter is welcomed and encouraged.
AB /se
Attachment
PRESENT PARKING POLICY USED IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Business and Professional Office: (and similar use or
establishment)
One (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of gross
floor area. For structures larger than ten thousand
(10,000) square feet, the above parking requirement shall be
provided and the following percentage shall be taken of the
remaining gross floor area:
10,001 to 20,000 sq. ft. - 95% of Parking Requirement
20,001 to 30,000 sq. ft. - 90% of Parking Requirement
30,001 to 40,000 sq. ft. - 85% of Parking Requirement
40,000 sq. ft. and up - 80% of Parking Requirement
Commercial Uses:
a. General Business and Retail Sales (except as otherwise
provided herein) - one (1) space per three hundred
(300) square feet of gross floor area up to ten
thousand (10,000) square feet. For structures larger
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the above
parking requirement shall be provided and the following
percentage shall be taken of the remaining gross floor
area:
10,001 to 20,000 sq. ft. - 95% of Parking Requirement
20,001 to 30,000 sq. ft. - 90% of Parking Requirement
30,001 to 40,000 sq. ft. - 85% of Parking Requirement
40,000 sq. ft. and up - 80% of Parking Requirement
b. Restaurants (and similar establishments serving food
and beverages) - one (1) space for each one hundred
(100) square feet of gross floor area.
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
February 11, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Little Rock Board of Adjustment Members
FROM: Anna Brown, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Policy Change for Parking in the Central
Business District
In accordance with the directive of the Board of Adjustment
at a meeting held on January 19, 1988, staff has compiled
for you three alternatives for the possible policy change
regarding parking requirements in the Central Business
District.
Past history of cases coming before the Board indicates that
in the past ten years, there have been a total of three
variances requested and the Board has approved two with
lease agreements for a period of five years being attached.
The one which the Board denied was not only deficient in
parking, but also there was a question about the amount of
floor space the applicant was requesting.
Staff feels that the Central Business District parking
requirements are unworkable primarily for two reasons.
First, the Metrocentre designated area has no parking
requirements. Secondly, areas west of Broadway are required
to adhere to the standard Citywide requirements.
Note:
Reasons for Policy changes to the parking requirements for
Central Business District in the City of Little Rock:
Special public interest should be addressed in regard to the
Central Business District because of the fact the area
stands as the center of community and business involvement.
CBD is the hub of all government activities for the City,
County and state. Properly functioning CBD areas help to
promote tourism and convention activities as well as a
transit system that is conducive to the needs of the
citizens and productive in generating funds.
By establishing a new parking policy for the Central
Business District, one might suspect discrimination of other
areas or question why special treatment is being proposed
for this area. Therefore, besides the reasons stated above,
a number of others could apply to the City of Little Rock
Central Business District. When the present ordinance was
adopted in 1980, some of the Central Business District
zonings were converted to "C-4" and "I-2" and in most cases
presented the problem of "C-4" and "I-2" zonings being
incompatible and inappropriate for the district. Secondly,
parking requirements under the present ordinance were
established with intent of addressing the needs of the
outlying suburban areas where malls and shopping centers
possibly could be developed. Thirdly, development in the
Central Business District has historically had different
patterns from the other areas of the City. Fourth, the
possible loss of businesses which are vital to the economic
base of Downtown. Fifth, and finally, the need for the
City to actively maintain and assure redevelopment of
businesses with innovative use and design.
Alternatives that could address the intent behind the
proposed policy changes for parking in the Central Business
District are as follows:
A. Parkinq reduction to increase mass transit use.
Ride sharing refers to work trips made by mass transit,
car pooling, fleet pooling, subscription bus service.
A typical program involves setting of ride share in
advance for two or more persons on a continuing basis.
The riders in such programs are matched by routes
tailored to fit the needs of individuals who will share
rides.
The way in which the parking alternative would be
applied is to not allow for any parking variances in
the Central Business District. Attempts would be made
to encourage employers to provide employees with bus
passes in order to commute back and forth to work.
This would allow for parking on -site to be used by
customers and help generate funds for mass transit.
B. Fees in lieu of parking.
In some cities' business districts, the community
allows for payment of fees in lieu of required off-site
parking. Such payments are typically based on a
percentage of the cost of providing parking in these
locations. The intent of collecting such fees is to
allow a municipality to finance and build central
parking garages which when constructed, would be
available to the customers and employees of those
businesses that have contributed funds. Payment in
lieu of parking may also be used to make small or
odd-shaped lots usable for development since payments
may be substituted for the required parking. To date,
however, there has been limited application of fees in
lieu of zoning provisions. The limited applications
reflect a variety of planning and administrative
problems in the use of such provisions. The problems
include:
1. Convincing developers and the financial community
that payment of fees in lieu of parking will, in
fact, result in the construction of parking.
2. Choosing and acquiring sites and locations
convenient to those land uses that contribute
fees-in-lieu.
3. Collecting sufficient in -lieu contributions to
make the actual construction of parking feasible.
4. Determining the appropriate charges for
fees-in-lieu contribution and for the management
of any parking facilitiy construction through the
colleciton of such fees.
C. Special parking requirements for the Central Business
District.
The concept surrounding this possible change would be
to allow for flexible parking requirements in the
Central Business District. The boundary lines for the
Central Business District would remain as they
presently are outlined. The Arkansas River to the
north, I-30 interstate to the east, I-630 interstate to
the south, and Cross Street to the west. Staff is
suggesting a special overlay district be established
that would be slightly different in that it would
exclude the Metrocentre area, the MacArthur Park area,
as well as that area south of the I -630 interstate.
The Metrocentre area has a zero parking requirement,
and staff feels that the MacArthur Park area as well as
the area south of I-630 could adequately meet the
present parking requirements.
Applications for parking variances that come within the
special overlay district would be taken on their own
merit when measuring need and ability to provide
parking, but in those cases where the new floor space
does not increase the traffic flow of customers or
increase the number of employees, zero parking would be
permitted. The burden of proof would still lie with
the applicant in order to meet this new requirement.
For those applications that exhibit an obvious increase
in the amount of traffic flow from customers and
employees when additional floor space is constructed,
the applicant would be required to obtain a five-year
lease agreement for the required number of parking
spaces. The lease parking spaces would have to be
within 600 feet of the site with a renewable option.
In those cases where the lease would not be renewed,
the applicant will be required to return to the Board
of Adjustment and justify the inability to provide the
parking spaces or demonstrate an alternative means for
providing the required parking spaces.
AB:jt7
DATE
B O A R D OF A D J U S T M E N T
V OT E R EC O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
`+AYE 0 NAYS A ABSENT ABSTAIN
Thomas MCGowan
av
rAld
N
John McDaniel
Earline Douglas
C ynthia Alderman
MEN
MOOMMMEMEN
Eduard
Jim Mitchell
N
iii
Ronald Pierce
��i�eeiiii�
Rex D. Crane
`+AYE 0 NAYS A ABSENT ABSTAIN
Board of Adjustment
'March 21, 1988
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Secretary Chairman
Date
City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MARCH 3, 1988
4:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairman William
H. Kennedy, III. A quorum was present (William H. Kennedy, III,
Thomas Johnson, John Jarrard, Cheryl Nichols). Ms. Jacalyn
Carfagno) was absent.
The Chairman asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the
last two meetings. Commissioner Jarrard stated that the minutes
of September 3, 1987, page 4, paragraph 3 specify "the lattice
work to be 1/2" or 3/8" wide." It should have stated "l and 1/2"
or 1 and 3/8" wide." Also on page 6, paragraph 7 states "cut
around the trees," and should have read "cut 258 off the top of
the trees." There being no further corrections, it was moved by
Commissioner Jarrard and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to
adopt the minutes with changes. The minutes of both meetings
were approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
Item #1 - Recommednation regarding the Governor's Mansion
National Register Historic District Amendment.
Commissioner Nichols gave a brief presentation. She stated that
it had been requested that the Little Rock Historic District
Commission review all National Register nominiations within the
boundaries of the City of Little Rock. She said that it was part
of the requirement for Little Rock being a Certified Local
Government, making the City eligible for federal funding through
the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program.
It was moved by Commissioner Jarrard and seconded by Commissioner
Johnson to adopt the recommendation. The item was adopted with a
vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention, 1 absent.
Item #2 - Brochure to the MacArthur Park Historic District
Property Owners.
A review of this item was given by Ms. Molly Satterfield and
Commissioner Nichols. Commissioner Nichols stated that she was
open for suggestions with the outline she had presented
Commissioner Kennedy suggested adding a history of the ordinance.
Commissioner Johnson commented that there was some confusion
between the MacArthur Park Historic District, the Capitol Zoning
District, and the Governor's Mansion National Register Historic
District..
Commissioner Nichols stated that the text for the brochure would
be ready by summer.
Item #3 - Adoption of a Calender for 1988.
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner
Nichols to approve the calendar for 1988 (attachment).
Commissioner Jarrard stated for the record that he would not be
able to attend the April 7th meeting.
Item #4 - The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
Commissioner Kennedy asked if money was available and Mrs.
Satterfield replied that money was available in the City budget.
The Commission agreed to join the National Alliance of
Preservation Commissions.
Commissioner Jarrard stated that he would like for the Little
Rock Historic District Commission to request that the Capitol
Zoning District Commission require design review of all
structures, including noncontributing structures in this district.
He related an incident that occurred at 7.0th and Spring Streets.
Ms. Satterfield was instructed by Commissioner Kennedy to draft a
letter to the Capitol Zoning District Commission.
Commissioner Nichols inquired about the status of the 1987 C.L.G.
project. Ms. Satterfield responded that it was in process and in
the City Manager's office and that the Quapaw Quarter Association
was going to administer the project.
Commissioner Nichols said that they needed to contact the Quapaw
Quarter Association regarding the administration of the project
and Commissioner Johnson suggested that the Commission send a
letter to Ms. Nancy Roy, President of the Quapaw Quarter Associ-
ation. The commission agreed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
4:30 p.m.
nm